LexTHE BERAR SWADESHI VANASPATHI & OTHERS versus THE MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, SHEGAON & ANOTHER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
596 SUPREME .COURT REPORTS [1962) r96r THE BERAR SWADESHI VANASPATHI & March z8. OTHERS v. THE MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, SHEGAON & ANOTHER (S. K. DAS, J. L. KAPUR, M. HIDAYATULLAH, J.C. SHAH and T. L. VENKATARAMA AYYAR JJ.) ;;. Octroi Tax-Imposition of-Irregularities-Issuance of Govern- ment Notification-Effect-C. P. & Berar Municipal Act, I922 (C. P. & Berar II of r922), s. 67, sub-ss. (6) and (8). The respondent Municipality passed a resolution under s. 67(1) of the C.P. & Berar Municipal Act, 1922, for the purpose of levying an octroi duty which was published in the State Gazette along with the rules for assessment. Objections were invited to the said proposed tax, and only one objection was filed within time which was also rejected. The Government gave its sanction to the imposition of the tax and draft Rules by two Notifications. The appellants filed a petition challenging the legality of the imposition of the tax inter alia on the ground that the notifica- tions were ultra vires. They contended that all steps necessary for the imposition of tax had not been taken and that objections raised within time by the respondent No. r were not considered on their merits and were rejected merely on the ground that there was only one objector; as this was one of the essential steps for the validity of the imposition of tax it could not be said that s. 67 of the Act had been complied with, therefore the im- position was invalid. Held, that where the Government Notification clearly was one which directed imposition of Octroi Tax it fell within sub- s. (7) of s. 67 of the Act and having been once notified in the Gazette sub-s. (8) of s. 67 of the Act came into operation and the issue of the notification was conclusive evidence of the Tax having been imposed in accordance with the provisions of the Act, and it could not be challenged on the ground that all neces- sary steps had not been taken. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 234of1959. Appeal from the order dated February 15, 1957 of the Bombay High Court of Judicature at Nagpur in Special Civil Application No. 2-N of 1956. S. P. Varma, for appellant No. 1. .. > ·' 1 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 597 B. S. Shastri and Ganpat Rai, for respondent No. 1. B. R. L. Iyengar and T. M. 'Sen, for respondent No. 2. Berar Swadeshi Vanaspathi 1961. March 28. delivered by The Judgment of the Court was v c lvlunicij,al om- KAPUR, J.-This is an appeal on a certificate by the High Court of Bombay against the judgment and order of that Court passed on a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution by the present appellants in regard to the legality of the notification levying an octroi duty on certain goods. The appellants are some of the ratepayers of the Municipal Committee of Shegaon which is respondent No. 1 in this appeal. The other respondent is the State of Bombay. The appellants were carrying on trade and business which involved their bringing goods within the limits of the Municipal Committee. On July 25, 1954, the Municipal Committee passed a resolution for the purpose of levying an octroi duty instead of terminal tax. This resolution was publish- ed in the State Gazette on June 29, 1956, along with rules for assessment. On August 4, 1956, objections were invited to the proposed tax. The objections by the first appellant were filed on August 4, 1956, and by some others on August 5 and 6. At a meeting of the Municipal Committee dated August 16, 1956, the objections of the other appellants were rejected as being time barred and those by the first appellant were rejected because it was the only objector whose objections were within time. Some representations were made by the first appellant to the Government and a few days later the other objectors also made similar representations but the Government issued the notification sanctioning the imposition of the tax and the Draft Rules on October 27, 1956, though the Gazette Notifications were published on two separate dates, i.e., October 30 and October 31, 1956. The appellants then filed a petition under Art. 226 in the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur challenging the legality of the imposition of the tax. Two main grounds were urged: (1) that the notification was ultra 1nittee, Shegaon 1< apur ]. Berar Swadeshi Vanaspathi v. Municipal Co11i- niittee, Shegaon T<apur .f. 598 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1962] vires because s. 67 of th
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.